Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-12-2015, 07:35 PM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
(20-12-2015 05:06 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(20-12-2015 05:03 PM)Chas Wrote:  We exist as transmissions. Freedom is the growth of flow, and of us.
The complexity of the present time seems to demand a blossoming of our third eyes if we are going to survive.

It can be difficult to know where to begin. Although you may not realize it, you are Vedic. Have you found your quest?

As you heal, you will enter into infinite understanding that transcends understanding. Through tarot, our brains are baptized in passion. Acupuncture may be the solution to what’s holding you back from a powerful flow of karma.

You and I are storytellers of the planet. Today, science tells us that the essence of nature is rejuvenation. Potentiality is the driver of faith.

Humankind has nothing to lose.
It is in ennobling that we are guided. Eons from now, we beings will reflect like never before as we are awakened by the infinite. This vision quest never ends.

You will soon be re-energized by a power deep within yourself — a power that is astral, dynamic. Prophet, look within and bless yourself. How should you navigate this sublime quantum soup?

I will kill you last while your wife and children watch while you recite this.

So you won't be killing my wife and children? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
20-12-2015, 07:37 PM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
(20-12-2015 07:29 PM)Pachomius Wrote:  Thanks a lot everyone for your replies.


Now, dear readers here, do you notice that the posters who reply, do not as is their disappointing habit attend to the actual issue or subject I have proposed that we all go into, at the present juncture of this thread.

Read the words in bold below:

{Quote starts}
(20-12-2015 06:13 AM)Pachomius Wrote:  In re "Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists."

========================


Thanks a lot for your replies.

I guess we have to re-start from the beginning.

[...]

So, let us all take a diversion, to take up seriously the feasibility of a thread with the title, namely:

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."


I await with excitement your reactions to that proposal above, and forgive me, I will concentrate on your reactions to that proposal above.

And I promise you, I will follow your lead to contribute to the development of the thread,

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."
{Quote Ends}



Please take the initiative, ask me this question or something like it, but in a brief line, namely:

Is there some idea we can and should work together to concur on, in order that we can prove successfully that something does not exist; you see, my parting statement in my last post here prior to the present one is an earnest request, that

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."

Propose to me something that I should work on with you, so that we both you and I can proceed to prove that something does not exist (or that something exists), like me agreeing to your idea of what it is to prove something in regard to its non-existence or existence.

I said that I need you to do your own personal thinking from your stock knowledge and experience, but it is okay with me now if you go to dictionaries, and reproduce what you read and understand of the verb prove and the noun proof, in the context of the present board, namely:

The Thinking Atheist Forum › The Heavy Stuff > Atheism and Theism

Please forgive me, may I request you to reproduce what you find in dictionaries, in say 50 words or less?

Dear readers, let us sit back and observe whether posters will attend to the actual issue I am inviting them to work on, and I will also work on, this time I will follow their lead.

What is the actual issue at present, in this present message? Here, read the text I will reproduce from above:

"Propose to me something that I should work on with you, so that we both you and I can proceed to prove that something does not exist (or that something exists), like me agreeing to your idea of what it is to prove something in regard to its non-existence or existence."

In few words, Tell me, dear posters here, what do you understand by the verb, to prove, and the noun, proof?

First and before anything else, of course parties in an exchange on a contentious question must come to concurrence on the meanings of important words employed in the exchange. That is proceeding according to critical thinking, otherwise parties would be talking wastefully of time and labr, past each other's heads.

Define your terms, state your thesis, and provide evidence to support it.

Or fuck off. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Chas's post
20-12-2015, 08:04 PM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
Fine. Let's play. But drop the "dear reader" condescension and the first-person-plural nonsense. We are not a class of kindergartners to be complacently led through one fallacy after another.

Proving things is done in the context of weighing multiple clearly defined competing hypotheses (or opinions, models, or so on) where each hypothesis has implications towards what we might observe.

Evidence is some observation or fact that favors one class of these hypotheses over another. For example, a detective's trying to solve a locked room mystery and is trying to figure out how the killer got in. Noticing that the windows are painted to the frame favors the hypothesis that the killer did not get in through a window. When enough evidence is accumulated so that a hypothesis is shown impossible, that hypothesis may be considered disproven, and the set of evidence doing this is the proof that the hypothesis is false. When all alternatives contrary to a hypothesis have been disproven, that hypothesis is proven true, and the set of evidence which has done this is the proof of that hypothesis's truth.

Proving that something exists, or proving that something does NOT exist, are both examples of hypotheses conforming to this principle. We gather evidence contrary to the thing's existence, in the case of proving non-existence, or gather evidence contrary to the thing's non-existence, in the case of its existence. When this evidence is sufficient to demonstrate the impossibility of the contrary claim, the matter will have been proven. The nature of the evidence that needs to be (or even can be) gathered depends on the nature of the object being claimed to exist or not exist.

For example, claiming that there is or isn't a full-grown elephant in the back of a truck is easy. You open the truck and shine a light in. Elephants are visible and large. If there's no elephant visible and no room left unchecked sufficient to hold the elephant, then the evidence is sufficient to show that evidence doesn't exist there. If in the back of the truck there's a clear, visible elephant who can be seen, touched, and so on, then the evidence is sufficient to show that anyone saying there isn't actually an elephant there is wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2015, 08:41 PM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
(20-12-2015 07:29 PM)Pachomius Wrote:  Thanks a lot everyone for your replies.


Now, dear readers here, do you notice that the posters who reply, do not as is their disappointing habit attend to the actual issue or subject I have proposed that we all go into, at the present juncture of this thread.

Read the words in bold below:

{Quote starts}
(20-12-2015 06:13 AM)Pachomius Wrote:  In re "Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists."

========================


Thanks a lot for your replies.

I guess we have to re-start from the beginning.

[...]

So, let us all take a diversion, to take up seriously the feasibility of a thread with the title, namely:

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."


I await with excitement your reactions to that proposal above, and forgive me, I will concentrate on your reactions to that proposal above.

And I promise you, I will follow your lead to contribute to the development of the thread,

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."
{Quote Ends}



Please take the initiative, ask me this question or something like it, but in a brief line, namely:

Is there some idea we can and should work together to concur on, in order that we can prove successfully that something does not exist; you see, my parting statement in my last post here prior to the present one is an earnest request, that

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."

Propose to me something that I should work on with you, so that we both you and I can proceed to prove that something does not exist (or that something exists), like me agreeing to your idea of what it is to prove something in regard to its non-existence or existence.

I said that I need you to do your own personal thinking from your stock knowledge and experience, but it is okay with me now if you go to dictionaries, and reproduce what you read and understand of the verb prove and the noun proof, in the context of the present board, namely:

The Thinking Atheist Forum › The Heavy Stuff > Atheism and Theism

Please forgive me, may I request you to reproduce what you find in dictionaries, in say 50 words or less?

Dear readers, let us sit back and observe whether posters will attend to the actual issue I am inviting them to work on, and I will also work on, this time I will follow their lead.

What is the actual issue at present, in this present message? Here, read the text I will reproduce from above:

"Propose to me something that I should work on with you, so that we both you and I can proceed to prove that something does not exist (or that something exists), like me agreeing to your idea of what it is to prove something in regard to its non-existence or existence."

In few words, Tell me, dear posters here, what do you understand by the verb, to prove, and the noun, proof?

First and before anything else, of course parties in an exchange on a contentious question must come to concurrence on the meanings of important words employed in the exchange. That is proceeding according to critical thinking, otherwise parties would be talking wastefully of time and labr, past each other's heads.


You sound like you wish to be a guru.

Frank Zappa said it best.

The mystery man came over
And he said "I'm outta sight!"
He said for a nominal service charge
I could reach nirvana tonight
If I was ready, willing and able
To pay him his regular fee
He would drop all the rest of
His pressing affairs and devote
His attention to me

But I said "Look here brother
who you jiving with that cosmik debris?
Now who you jiving with that cosmik debris?
Look here brother, don't waste your time on me"

The mystery man got nervous
And he fidget around a bit
He reached in the pocket of his mystery robe
And he whipped out a shaving kit
Now I thought it was a razor
And a can of foaming goo
But he told me right then when the top popped open
There was nothin' his box won't do
With the oil of Aphrodite, and the dust of the Grand Wazoo
He said "You might not believe this, little fella
But it'll cure your asthma too"

And I said "Look here brother
Who you jiving with that cosmik debris?
Now what kind of a guru are you, anyway?
Look here brother, don't waste your time on me"
*(Don't waste your time)*

"I've got troubles of my own", I said
"And you can't help me out
So, take your meditations and your preparations
And ram it up your snout!"
"But I got the crystal ball", he said
And held it to the ligh
So I snatched it, all away from him
And I showed him how to do it right

I wrapped a newspaper 'round my head
So I looked like I was deep
I said some mumbo-jumbo, then
I told him he was going to sleep
I robbed his rings and pocketwatch
And everything else I found
I had that sucker hypnotized
He couldn't even make a sound
I proceeded to tell him his future, then
As long as he was hanging around
I said "The price of meat has just gone up
And your old lady has just gone down!"

And I said "Look here brother-who you
Jiving with that cosmik debris?
Now is that a real poncho or is that a Sears poncho?
Don't you know, you could make more money as a butcher?
So, don't waste your time on me"
Don't waste it, don't waste your time on me

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
20-12-2015, 11:01 PM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
(20-12-2015 07:29 PM)Pachomius Wrote:  {Quote starts}
(20-12-2015 06:13 AM)Pachomius Wrote:  In re "Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists."

========================


Thanks a lot for your replies.

I guess we have to re-start from the beginning.

[...]

So, let us all take a diversion, to take up seriously the feasibility of a thread with the title, namely:

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."


I await with excitement your reactions to that proposal above, and forgive me, I will concentrate on your reactions to that proposal above.

And I promise you, I will follow your lead to contribute to the development of the thread,

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."
{Quote Ends}
We know when your quote starts and ends you silly shit, that's the whole point of using the quote function.

(20-12-2015 07:29 PM)Pachomius Wrote:  Please take the initiative, ask me this question or something like it, but in a brief line, namely:
Or how about, given that you're not the God Emperor of Mankind and thus have no right to dictate the conversation, you either answer the questions people put to you or you go fuck yourself? How about that instead?

(20-12-2015 07:29 PM)Pachomius Wrote:  Is there some idea we can and should work together to concur on, in order that we can prove successfully that something does not exist
No you bloody child there is not, which is a thing you would know if you had an even basic understanding of logic. You are asking to prove a negative. You are also trying to shift the burden of proof. We don't have to prove a thing does not exist to justify discarding the belief, you must provide evidence to justify holding a belief.So you can talk about "critical thinking" all you want but when you display, publicly, a complete ignorance of the BASICS of logic I can safely roll my eyes at your ignorant and dishonest ass and throw you in the bin with the rest of your malignant brood.

(20-12-2015 07:29 PM)Pachomius Wrote:  "Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."

Propose to me something that I should work on with you, so that we both you and I can proceed to prove that something does not exist
Like I said above the fact you are even asking this question demonstrates how unqualified you are to add anything to the conversation your trying to start. The fact that everyone here is able to see right through your bullshit shell game and get 10 steps ahead of you should also be a red flag on how bumblefuckingly incompetent you are on this subject.

(20-12-2015 07:29 PM)Pachomius Wrote:  (or that something exists), like me agreeing to your idea of what it is to prove something in regard to its non-existence or existence.
It's call the Scientific Method. It works, it's reliable, its demonstrable, it's falsifiable, it's testable. It fuckin' works, and it's the only method that does. You got nothing to add to that method and you certainly ain't capable of improving upon it.

(20-12-2015 07:29 PM)Pachomius Wrote:  I said that I need you to do your own personal thinking from your stock knowledge and experience
Facepalm There isn't another way to think except from your own stock of knowledge you simpleton. Bloody 'ell.


(20-12-2015 07:29 PM)Pachomius Wrote:  but it is okay with me now if you go to dictionaries...
Heeeeeeeeeey no one fucking cares if it is or is not OK with you. Pull your head outta your ass.

(20-12-2015 07:29 PM)Pachomius Wrote:  Please forgive me, may I request you to reproduce what you find in dictionaries, in say 50 words or less?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof
Basically Evidence. Proof is not word games. It's not a some silly little bullshit shell game. It's not some ignorant scratches that some centuries dead asshole wrote in a book of myths from a time when they still shit in their drinking water. It's evidence, it's demonstrable, it's testable, it's independently verifiable, and it can be falsified. See again the mothafuckin' Scientific Method.

(20-12-2015 07:29 PM)Pachomius Wrote:  Dear readers, let us sit back and observe whether posters will attend to the actual issue I am inviting them to work on, and I will also work on, this time I will follow their lead.
Dear asshole, the fact that you didn't get the answers you were fishing for and that you need to keep your little script a flowin' does not mean people were not addressing your issue. the problem is that your issue is fucking stupid, poorly expressed, incompetently formed, and was answered centuries ago by the formation of (say it with me) the mothafuckin' Scientific Method.
If you're too stupid to realize that your question was answered before the goddamn telegraph was invented it's not OUR fault, it's yours.

(20-12-2015 07:29 PM)Pachomius Wrote:  "Propose to me something that I should work on with you, so that we both you and I can proceed to prove that something does not exist
Thank you for mindlessly repeating this for the 3rd+ time in this one single post. We get it bro, you're stupid and you don't understand basic logic.

(20-12-2015 07:29 PM)Pachomius Wrote:  (or that something exists)
Evidence. It's your response ability to provide it. Glad we got that cleared up.

(20-12-2015 07:29 PM)Pachomius Wrote:  like me agreeing to your idea of what it is to prove something...
Your agreement is utterly irrelevant. The "idea" is the Scientific Method and it works when every other system of investigation fails and fails and fails. Neither it nor anyone here needs, or even gives the smallest shit about for that matter, your personal seal of approval.
There is a reason ever single discovery ever made in the history of ever has been found via this method and will for the rest of time.

(20-12-2015 07:29 PM)Pachomius Wrote:  That is proceeding according to critical thinking, otherwise parties would be talking wastefully of time and labr, past each other's heads.
I couldn't care less if we talk past your head, or over as the case so obviously is, because the "idea" you want to talk about already exists, has a 100% track record, and have been the source of every single discovery ever made by man and you have neither the competency nor the intelligence to add to it or challenge it.
It's the Scientific Method. There you go you got your answer, now what kid?

If you have any evidence present it or shut your dick holster, leave, and stop wasting everyone's time. We got enough of you dime a dozen jerk offs here and I'd rather not have you clog the sewage pipes on your way out when the next batch shows up.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
21-12-2015, 01:40 AM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
Dear Whiskey, as you bring up the term evidence, then let you and me work to concur on what is the meaning of evidence, in regard to something existing or not existing, is that all right with you?

From Pachomius
(Today 09:29 AM)Pachomius Wrote:
Please forgive me, may I request you to reproduce what you find in dictionaries, in say 50 words or less?

From Whiskey
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof
Basically Evidence. Proof is not word games. It's not a some silly little bullshit shell game. It's not some ignorant scratches that some centuries dead asshole wrote in a book of myths from a time when they still shit in their drinking water. It's evidence, it's demonstrable, it's testable, it's independently verifiable, and it can be falsified. See again the mothafuckin' Scientific Method.



First, if I may, you and I know for a certainty is that evidence is something, it is not nothing, it participates in the default status of things in the world, which is existence.

Please, I like to learn from you what sort of a thing is evidence. is it a concept in our mind or an object that is independent of our mind, so that in the timeline of the history of mankind when mankind was not existing, was there a mind thinking about evidence; and/or also, if this mind at that time were not existing, was there an object that is evidence, so that evidence exists then when no mind at all was present to think about it?

Let me learn from you.

The question that I like to learn from you, is in few words, As evidence is something, does it exist in a mind or it also exists outside a mind, and even when there is no mind at all?

I hope to welcome your effort of sharing your thinking with me, by replying to the question immediately preceding these ending words from me.

Cheers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2015, 01:50 AM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
(21-12-2015 01:40 AM)Pachomius Wrote:  Dear Whiskey, as you bring up the term evidence, then let you and me work to concur on what is the meaning of evidence, in regard to something existing or not existing, is that all right with you?

From Pachomius
(Today 09:29 AM)Pachomius Wrote:
Please forgive me, may I request you to reproduce what you find in dictionaries, in say 50 words or less?

From Whiskey
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof
Basically Evidence. Proof is not word games. It's not a some silly little bullshit shell game. It's not some ignorant scratches that some centuries dead asshole wrote in a book of myths from a time when they still shit in their drinking water. It's evidence, it's demonstrable, it's testable, it's independently verifiable, and it can be falsified. See again the mothafuckin' Scientific Method.



First, if I may, you and I know for a certainty is that evidence is something, it is not nothing, it participates in the default status of things in the world, which is existence.

Please, I like to learn from you what sort of a thing is evidence. is it a concept in our mind or an object that is independent of our mind, so that in the timeline of the history of mankind when mankind was not existing, was there a mind thinking about evidence; and/or also, if this mind at that time were not existing, was there an object that is evidence, so that evidence exists then when no mind at all was present to think about it?

Let me learn from you.

The question that I like to learn from you, is in few words, As evidence is something, does it exist in a mind or it also exists outside a mind, and even when there is no mind at all?

I hope to welcome your effort of sharing your thinking with me, by replying to the question immediately preceding these ending words from me.

Cheers.


Boy, you need to be smacked with the wet noodle of Hard Solipsism. Dodgy

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2015, 02:46 AM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
(21-12-2015 01:40 AM)Pachomius Wrote:  Dear Whiskey, as you bring up the term evidence, then let you and me work to concur on what is the meaning of evidence, in regard to something existing or not existing, is that all right with you?

From Pachomius
(Today 09:29 AM)Pachomius Wrote:
Please forgive me, may I request you to reproduce what you find in dictionaries, in say 50 words or less?

From Whiskey
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof
Basically Evidence. Proof is not word games. It's not a some silly little bullshit shell game. It's not some ignorant scratches that some centuries dead asshole wrote in a book of myths from a time when they still shit in their drinking water. It's evidence, it's demonstrable, it's testable, it's independently verifiable, and it can be falsified. See again the mothafuckin' Scientific Method.



First, if I may, you and I know for a certainty is that evidence is something, it is not nothing, it participates in the default status of things in the world, which is existence.

Please, I like to learn from you what sort of a thing is evidence. is it a concept in our mind or an object that is independent of our mind, so that in the timeline of the history of mankind when mankind was not existing, was there a mind thinking about evidence; and/or also, if this mind at that time were not existing, was there an object that is evidence, so that evidence exists then when no mind at all was present to think about it?

Let me learn from you.

The question that I like to learn from you, is in few words, As evidence is something, does it exist in a mind or it also exists outside a mind, and even when there is no mind at all?

I hope to welcome your effort of sharing your thinking with me, by replying to the question immediately preceding these ending words from me.

Cheers.

Are you seriously asking about the definition of the word 'evidence'?

I Googled it. Here ya go.

evidence
ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/Submit
noun
noun: evidence
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
"the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, authentication, attestation, documentation; More
LAW
information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court.
"without evidence, they can't bring a charge"
synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, authentication, attestation, documentation; More
signs or indications of something.
plural noun: evidences
"there was no obvious evidence of a break-in"
synonyms: signs, indications, pointers, marks, traces, suggestions, hints; manifestation
"the room showed evidence of a struggle"
verb
verb: evidence; 3rd person present: evidences; past tense: evidenced; past participle: evidenced; gerund or present participle: evidencing
1.
be or show evidence of.
"the quality of the bracelet, as evidenced by the workmanship, is exceptional"
synonyms: indicate, show, reveal, be evidence of, display, exhibit, manifest, denote, evince, signify; More
antonyms: disprove

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2015, 06:00 AM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
(21-12-2015 01:40 AM)Pachomius Wrote:  Dear Whiskey, as you bring up the term evidence, then let you and me work to concur on what is the meaning of evidence, in regard to something existing or not existing, is that all right with you?

From Pachomius
(Today 09:29 AM)Pachomius Wrote:
Please forgive me, may I request you to reproduce what you find in dictionaries, in say 50 words or less?

From Whiskey
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof
Basically Evidence. Proof is not word games. It's not a some silly little bullshit shell game. It's not some ignorant scratches that some centuries dead asshole wrote in a book of myths from a time when they still shit in their drinking water. It's evidence, it's demonstrable, it's testable, it's independently verifiable, and it can be falsified. See again the mothafuckin' Scientific Method.



First, if I may, you and I know for a certainty is that evidence is something, it is not nothing, it participates in the default status of things in the world, which is existence.

Please, I like to learn from you what sort of a thing is evidence. is it a concept in our mind or an object that is independent of our mind, so that in the timeline of the history of mankind when mankind was not existing, was there a mind thinking about evidence; and/or also, if this mind at that time were not existing, was there an object that is evidence, so that evidence exists then when no mind at all was present to think about it?

Let me learn from you.

The question that I like to learn from you, is in few words, As evidence is something, does it exist in a mind or it also exists outside a mind, and even when there is no mind at all?

I hope to welcome your effort of sharing your thinking with me, by replying to the question immediately preceding these ending words from me.

Cheers.

Let's see how many times you commit a category error and then attempt to drive a square peg into a round hole. Drinking Beverage

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2015, 09:09 AM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
(21-12-2015 01:40 AM)Pachomius Wrote:  Dear Whiskey, as you bring up the term evidence, then let you and me work to concur on what is the meaning of evidence, in regard to something existing or not existing, is that all right with you?

From Pachomius
(Today 09:29 AM)Pachomius Wrote:
Please forgive me, may I request you to reproduce what you find in dictionaries, in say 50 words or less?

From Whiskey
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof
Basically Evidence. Proof is not word games. It's not a some silly little bullshit shell game. It's not some ignorant scratches that some centuries dead asshole wrote in a book of myths from a time when they still shit in their drinking water. It's evidence, it's demonstrable, it's testable, it's independently verifiable, and it can be falsified. See again the mothafuckin' Scientific Method.



First, if I may, you and I know for a certainty is that evidence is something, it is not nothing, it participates in the default status of things in the world, which is existence.

Please, I like to learn from you what sort of a thing is evidence. is it a concept in our mind or an object that is independent of our mind, so that in the timeline of the history of mankind when mankind was not existing, was there a mind thinking about evidence; and/or also, if this mind at that time were not existing, was there an object that is evidence, so that evidence exists then when no mind at all was present to think about it?

Let me learn from you.

The question that I like to learn from you, is in few words, As evidence is something, does it exist in a mind or it also exists outside a mind, and even when there is no mind at all?

I hope to welcome your effort of sharing your thinking with me, by replying to the question immediately preceding these ending words from me.

Cheers.

I provided you the answers for which you seek dear writer, here: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid918506

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: